Skip to main content

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: Skobud Date: Oct 16, 2011 8:30am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Can you tell the difference between FLAC and mp3 on a blind test?

I think this may help. Think of it as brightness or clarity. Most of the time if a board has static, humm, hiss, etc its gonna sound the same regardless of copy. The difference may be in the overall depth of the sound.

The only real measurable difference comes in the higher frequencies. Im talking > 16k. mp3 320 is absolutely equivalent in signal reproduction to flac insofar as what the human ear can even hear. When you start losing higher frequencies due to compression(lower vbr and cbr, or a bitrate < 192) the recording may start to sound hollow or like it has waay to much dolby on or something.

As far as my personal opinion, flac is great, but if you archive as much music as I have mp3 is the way to go. Just go with 320 bitrate and you will not hear a difference. People that tell you they do would have to know exactly what they are looking for(in other words understand how compression works) and most likely view it on a program like Soundforge or Cubase.

I think that most people that tell you there is an audible difference has no idea what they are talking about. They simply like the idea of the perfect digital copy. Thats just my opinion though.

EDIT: My post above looks snarky at the end and that is not how I meant it. You can hear the difference in a shitty low vbr recompressed copy vs flac. My point being is that circulating copies that most people listen to these days are already high enough in bitrate that you would not hear a real difference, regardless of system. You would have to graph it to see where the loss really is.

This post was modified by Skobud on 2011-10-16 15:30:31